Indeed.
However, what about a hybrid scheme?
Consider that the definition of a company car is, broadly, that the company provides (be it by owning it or not) a car which is available for private use, that is to say that the company is bearing the cost (in terms of funding the car) of all or part (even if only the tiniest part) of the private use element.
A consequence of this definition is that, where the employee is herself funding the provision of the entire vehicle, but is receiving a (typically mileage-based) contribution for any business use of it, then it's not a company car, it is her own.
But what if the provision costs are split, and the proportion matches the usage proportion? Could not employer and employee jointly lease the car from a third party?
Suppose the car will be used 40% for business and 60% privately, and it costs £1000 a month to lease the car in an all-in package which includes servicing, insurance, etc, i.e. everything except fuel.
If the employee then pays £600pm to the leasing company and the employer pays the other £400pm, surely it could be argued that the employer is not paying for the *provision* of that part of the vehicle which is available for private use, and that therefore it is not a company car.
Could it be that we have in this particular situation a case of the company's left hand not knowing what its right hand is doing, where a scheme was introduced by a whizzo who is no longer with them, and that the fact that the car benefit now appears on the P11D is at variance with the intention of whoever originally designed the scheme?